The Sun. — London, England, 1836-04-21 00:00:00

1-15 MAJESTY'S LEVEE. His 'Majesty held a Levee yesterday, at St. James's. In the entree circle the Baron de Nocklen, officer in the Guards of his Majesty the King of Sweden and Norway, was presented to the King by Count Bjornstjerna, the Swedish . . Minister. At the entree Levee Lord Elphinstone was presented cn his appointment as Governor of Madras, by Sir John Hob- house. Mr. Bligh, his Majesty's Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Stockholm, was presented on his appoint ment, by Viscount Palmerston. The Levee was attended by Prince Ernest of Hesse Phi lippstbal, Prince Edward of Carolath, the Russian and French Ambassadors, the Neapolitan, Prussian, Swedish, Wurtem berg, Hanoverian, Danish, Portuguese, Grecian, Bavarian, Brazilian, Netherlands, and Saxon - Ministers ; Noory E ffendi, Ottoman Minister, and Mr. Salame, his Majesty's Oriental Interpreter ; the Austrian and United States Charges d'Af faires ; Mr. Wallez, Belgian Charge d'Affaires; Mr. Philip. Friell, A.D,C., and the Molvee Mahomed Ismael Khan, Am bassadors from the King of Oude ; Count Seckendorff, Se cretary to the Prussian Legation ; Mr. Lichtenberg, Privy Councillor of the Hanoverian Legation ; Count de Grammont, Secretary to the French Embassy ; Count de Plessen, Secre tary to the Danish Legation ; M. Vogoridis, Interpreter to the Turkish Legation ; Baron Lebzeltern, Attache to the Austrian Embassy ; the Archbishop of York, the Lord President, the Lord Privy Seal, the First Lord of the Treasury, the Secre taries of State for the Home, Foreign, and Colonial Depart ments, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Lord Chamberlain, the Groom of the Stole, the Master of the Horse, .Lord Hill, Gold Stick in Waiting ; the Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms, the Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard, the Master of the King's Buckhounds, Sir J. Nicholl, Judge of the Admiralty ; the Master-General of the Ordnance, the Paymaster of the Forces, the Judge Advocate General, the Treasurer of the Household, the Clerk Marshal, Lord F. Fitzclarence, Equerry to the King• •' the Attorney-General, the Master of the Cere monies, Sir W. Betham, Ulster King of Arms ; Rev. Dr. Blomberg, Clerk of the Closet ; Sir F. Palgrave, K. H., Keeper the Records of the Treasury of his Majesty's Ex chequer ; Hon. Captain Poulett, R.N., Naval Aide-de-Camp to the King ; Earl of Aboyne, Lord Saltoun, Lord Downes, Colonels Sir J. Harvey, Sir R. H. Dick, Sir A. Dalrymple, and Elphinstone, Aids-de-Camp to the King; Lieut.-Colonel Cavendish, Silver Stick in Waiting ; Major Hyde, Assistant Master and Marshal of the Ceremonies ; Master Graves, Page of Honour ; Lieutenant-Colonel Fowle, Groom of the Privy Chamber, and the following : DUKES— Sutherland, Wellington, Beaufort, Leinster. MARQUISES—Camden, Anglesey, Bute. Eanis—Cadogan, Craven, Kinnoull, Aboyne, Lonsdale, Cawdor, Wicklow, Rosslyn, Verulam, Brecknock, Howe, Mount F,dgcumbe, Denbigh, Hardwicke, Winterton, Radnor, Tyrconnel, Sheffield, Amherst, Brownlow. VISCOUNT s—Ashbrook, Hood, Newry,Cantelupe, Maynard, Ferrard, Fincastle. Loans—Kir.* Suffield, Byron, Gardner, Maryborough, Cowley, Henniker, W. Lennox, Heytesbury, Howard, G. Paget, Poltimorc, Fitzallan, W. de Broke, Ashby; Bridport, Bingham, A. Paget, Kenyon. Archbishop of Armagh. Bisnors—Down and Connor, Rochester. RIGIIT lIONOURABLES—Sir Fred. Lamb, Sir G. Ouseley, Bart., NV. Y. Peel, Sir E. Thornton, Sir W. Alexander, Sir C. Bagot. Hoectiaannrs—Wm. A'Court Holmes, George S. Stafford Ric:lino:llam, Baron Dimsdale, W. Bathurst, Henry Arundell, Mr. Maynard, Lieutenant-Co l one l Maitland, W. Duncombe, R. Curzon, R. C. Scarlett, R. Curzon, jun., Scarlett, M. I'., Captain Roes. SIRS—John Paul, Richard Bulkelcy Philipps, Robert Fitz- Wygrarn, Henry Paulet, Francis Goodricke, George Sinclair, C. Mackenzie, Bart., C. Monck, J. Arundel, H. Fletcher, T. Fellowes, S. Canning, F. G. E. Drake, R. Arbuthnot, Bart , J. Croft, Bart.,' R. Hayan, T. B. Lethbridge, W. aatterton; W. Middleton, J. Barrow. DE ,N—Windsor. Doc T —W. J. Hooker, F. Hawkins, Cahill. Ray. ;MESSRS.—William Canning. J H. Dakins, J. Gosset, T. Havartield, J. W. Hayes. MEssas.--Fitzrov Kelly, K.C., Edward Buller, H. C. Hoare, Joshua J. Brandon, Davies Gilbert, jun., Lambert, W. C. Fowle, Thomas Gladstone, J. J. Hart, Colyear Daw kins, Power, H. Gorges. Irvine, Palmer, H. L. Bulwer, H. Light. W, Hanmer, H. Lambton, Affleck, J. Mangles, Mit obeli, H. Candler, Mostyn. J. Thornton, Every, Qum, Long, J. Dug•lnle. Pulman, J. Blackburne, Derinzy, James, Tur quand, Mackinnon. M. P., Boyce, Ravenshase, A. Drum mond, G. Brown, E. Goulburn, Marston, E. Phipps, Mann sell. ill P., 13agot, V. Smith, Fi • French, F. W. Hamilton, B. Gu:don, Harcourt, Balfour, S. Mackenzie, A. Smith, W. Rae Wilson, Elliott. A DMI RA LS—sir George Martin, Lord A. Bcauclerk, Don nelly, S'r R. Stopford, Sir H. Digby, Fellowes, Thompson. CAPTAINS (Itillyal Navy)—Sir John Franklin, Tower, G. Smith, Polkioghorne, Sir, .1. C. Coghill, Sykes, R. Matin s-1, S!:iosey, R. Oliver, Thornton, W. Filly er, Fremantle, Sir U. Pigott. 80uv,.-ria, Kennedy. P. Fisher. C&I7.r7ANDT:;:fi (Royal Navy)—George Evans, J. B. Hav e Sir W. Dickson. J. Sherer, Lord F. Bea.uclerk, Bushby, Dc Sfrumarcz, Sp 3 rshott. Sir J. Thomson. Brothers, GE N T , r.u.s—Sir Kernot, Hon. Sir A. Hope, G. C.B. Sir Ilaory Cumming, Sir George Elder, Sir A. Brooke, Bul ler. G iseoyne, Cioshie, Sir K. Fvro ' isson, Le Mrsurier, lord flowlen,Shrapnell,Lord. Strafford, Sir S. S.r W. H. Clinton. Gotdic, Sir P. Maclean, Bar to:i. S. %,•,) r :). Maitland. Sir W. Alacbean, Bonham, (.taring, Sir W. Keir Grant, Sir Wm. Si: R. Darling. Meade. in Vans Agnew, C. 13. ; Sir W. Gomm G. i)run• :Si; C. CvLoNEr,c— Nv - r ki„ ,, , (2. I)vson, NVedderburii, Eltieornbe, Goodroan. Y. Butler, Yorke, Bolder°, Sir P.o iscrt Itaver.sliaw, Rani don, Fic' 1.1.y.,:,5--Cwriruing Bruce, Gore Browne, Soppi r t, An- Fitzroy, Grenadier Guards; J. Med:, NV. .J. Tem., Palmer, Hughes, H. A. Kerr, Black " Si:roc:ll%r,, iLnimer, Houlton, Campbell, Bathurst, , ns, \V. B. Clarke, Randall, Duucombe, S:.q . jantson, Chetwynds, Meade. -LIT- . :;T, NANTs—T. Jones, lion. C. J. Scott, Aekers, Oliver, Drumm , n Grant, Kennedy, Stremett, Hon. F. A. Gordon, Vge, ire Sali., Bonham, Keane, Donnetborne, Tyrell. Co 4N r•r— Boyce. bur!! R. .s—Vaulconicr, F. J. Raikcs, Harris. DULLIN ELECTION COMMITTEE. ( Continued from cur First Edition of yesterday.) Augustus Frederick Pemberton was objected to by the sit ting- rn - 2:nber, being reglstered as a freeman, and con-resident at the time of voting. Mr. WaaNnnAm submitted there was no proof of the voter having changed his residence between the period of registry and the election.—Vote allowed. A NON-REsIDENT CURATE.—The Rev. John Judkin But ler um next objected to by Mr. Hutton, on the ground of being a non-resident freeman. The voter, after his ordination in October 1834, obtained a curacy is the county of Westmeath, distant 46 miles from Dublin, and continued to perform the duties of the curacv from 1834 to April 1835. He resided occasionally at the Glebe house, and occasionally came to Dublin. The Rector 'would be satisfied if he came to the parish on Saturday, and performed duty on Sunday. The Rec tor was incapable of doing duty. He was in a dying state. He came to Dublin on the sth of January, before the election The voter's father declined to swear that he resided seven days in succession, from November, 1834, to January, 1835, at his house in Dublin. • The vote was allowed. Edward Ball same objection—overruled. The nest class of objections taken by the sitting members, was that .relating to persons employed in the sale of stamps. Mr. Joy, read the section of the Act disqualifying such voters, and directed the attention of the Committee thereto. Michael Browne Lacey was the first name on the list, and the evidence was being read by Mr. Hutton, when it was an nounced that the Speaker was at prayers. It was announced to the last meeting of the Geo graphical Society, that some interesting particulars had just been received from Mr. Beacroft, who has recently ascended the Niger in one of Mr. Laird's steam-boats the Quorra, as far as Attacoula, about two hundred miles up the river. The results of the expedition are in the highest degree satisfactory ; the voyagers had been extremely well received by the natives, who evinced much friendly disposition, and a strong inclina tion to trade ; they had thus succcded in procuring several tons of ivory ; and throughout the whole expedition, which occupied about eighty days, no loss of life nor other serious accident occurred. The crew was composed almost entirely of Kroomen. • At the last meeting of the Medico-Botanical So ciety, Dr. Sigmond, in the course of a paper on the ergot of rye, observed, that from letters received from the medical officers, and the result of an inquiry now going forward, there was little doubt that the disease which had proved so destruc tive was ergotism, produced by eating spurred or diseased rye or wheat. The symptoms were congestion, speedily terminat ing in gangrene, and the disease had at times, in Europe, as sumed the character of an epidemic, as at Orleans in 1757. Earl Stanhope, who was in the chair, stated that an analogous disease was at times prevalent in Switzerland. The last reading to which Cowper listened appears to have been that of his own works. Beginning with the first volume, Mr. Johnson went through them, and he listened to :sem in silence till they came to John Gilpin, which he begged co Ito hear. It reminded him of cheerful days, and of those ( !whom he could not bear to think. His kinsman then pro. eee t ded to hi s unpublished poems; these he hea rd willin g l y , but made no remark on them. —Southey's Cowper. Died on Saturday morning, the 9th instant, after five days' illness, yearsM rs she . Elizabeth Butler, of Boxford, ag0d.64.. For thirty-eight carried letters to and from Boxford to Newbury. During the whole of that period it has been ascertained she walked not less . than eighty miles weekly. In addition to this, if we tak w e al ato consideration her circuitous route and her frequently walking Newbury twice in the day, it will make a total of 163,000 ar s ib a distance equal to seven times the circumference of the earth by In the whole of that time she was not prevented onesicltness from pur suing .her employment. Her exemplary c onductafter and good ness of heart were well known to many ; and diedfilling the several duties of wife, mother, and sincere friend, t a pat tern of humble piety and resignation, regretted by all.— Reading Mercury. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, APRIL 20. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY took his seat on the Wool sack at 5 o'clock. Mr. OSWALD and others from the Commons brought up the Glasgow Court House Bill, which was read a first time. Lord DACRE presented a petition from Loughton, in Essex, praying for a redress of the Dissenters' grievances. The Birmingham and Gloucester Railway Bill was read a third time and passed. The Mutiny Bill, and the Marine Mutiny Bill went through Committee without amendment. The Sheffield and Rotherham Railway Bill was read a se cond time. The other Bills on the table were forwarded a stage, and the House adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Aritir. 20. The SPEAKER took the chair at five minutes before three o'clock. OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH. Petitions were presented by Mr. Cayley, Mr. Ridley, Mr. Bains, Sir John Elley, Mr. Barnard, Mr. Pease, Sir John Yarde Buller, and Mr. Plumptre, and various other Members in favor of the better observance of the Sabbath. Sir ANDREW AGNEW presented several petitions on the same subject. Mr. MILES presented petitions from Wesleyan Methodists to the same effect. Mr. TOOKE presented a petition from Truro on the same subject, and with a similar prayer. DUBLIN ELECTION. Mr. MAXWELL obtainedleave for the Committee on this election to sit till four o'clock. An HoN. MEMBER said he had a petition to present from the Society of Friends—as respectable a portion of the community as any to be found in this country. It was signed by the representatives of the body on the p art of th entire in Great Britain and Ireland. From his expe rience he would say there was not in his Majesty's dominions a class of men more remarkable for their habits of business, their undeviating integrity and courteous demeanor, and he felt honoured in being selected as the medium of conveying their opinions to the House. They complained of the great loss and hardship Which they sustained by their conscientious opposition to the payment of church rates and tithes. The Hon. Gentleman was proceeding to state the grievances com plained of in detail, when he was interrupted by The SPE AKER, who desired the petition to be brought up. The Hon. MEMBER, after one or two observations, brought up the petition, but said he wished to have mado some re marks upon it. The SPEAKER said it was understood that no discussion should take place on the presentation of petitions. Major . BE AUCLERK said his constituents frequently called upon him to support the prayer of petitions, and he thought he should state his concurrence in their views. The SPEAKER said the best way to support a petition was for Hon. Members to be in their places when the mea -1 sures to which, they referred were under discussion, and to do so by their votes and speeches. SABBATH OBSERVANCE. Colonel H. BAILLIE presented a petition from Honiton, praying for a Bill to enforce the better observance of the Lord's day ; also another on the same subject from the bakers and hairdressers of the same place ; also a petition, with a similar prayer, from the curate and inhabitants of the paris . sof Northlcigh MARINE INSURANCES. Mr. BLACKBIJRNE presented a petition from the mer chants of Huddersfield, praying for a reduction of the duty on Marine Insurances. Also from the Medical Practitioners of the same place, praying for compensation when attending Co roners' Inquests. SNUFF MANUFACTURERS. Mr. MARSLAND presented a petition from the Snuff manufacturers of Newcastle-on. Tyne, complaining of fiauds , committed on the revenue to their detriment. dingy, SALT DUTIES. Mr. KEMP presented a petition from the bor.:nigh of Lewes, praying for a repeal of the Duties on Salt. Also petitions for the repeal of the additionz.l duties on spirit licenses. Also a petition for the total repeal of the duty on Newspapers. TITHE COMMUTATION BILL. Sir J. Y. BULLER presented a petition from Harbo rough against this Bill. Maior BE AUCL ERK had been requested to support the prayer of the petition, but from the rebuke which had been given by the Speaker he did not know what course to pursue ;. he begged to know how he was to comply with the request of his constituents, if he was not allowed to speak in support of the prayer of the petition. The SPEAKER said there was a Bill passing through that House on the subject to Which the petition .referred. The best way fur the I.lon. Member to comply with the request of his constituents would be to attend in his place, and when the Bill was under discussion support the prayer of the petition. 11, observation whic'S he (the Speaker) felt it his duty to make wps not intended as a rebuke to the lion. Member to whom they were addressed. . BEAUCLERK would always maintain his right as a Member of that House to make any observations on present ing petitions, which he felt it necessary to offer. Mr. PARROTT said he did not regard the observations of the Speaker in the light of a rebuke. He conceived it to be a suggestion with a view to facilitate the public business. Mr. PLUM PT It E presented a petition from the Licensed Victuallers of Margate, praying for an alteration of the l a w with respect to Spirit Licenses. The Hon. Member also pre sented petitions from the same place, praying for- the abolition of punishment of death in certain cases. Mr. CA YLE r i. resented several petitions from Disborough. end different parts of Yorkshire, praying for an inquiry into the cause of agricultural distress. ST W. GEARY presented petitions from Watcringberrv, and other I,!aces, praying for the repeal of the Malt The Hon. 31m:1)er alEo presented petitions from Holbeach, and other places, complaining of agricultural distress. Llir. P. HOWARD presented ' petitions from Carlisle, praying for an alteration in the law with respect to the mate ria!s 'used for the construction of churches and chapels. Mr. P. MA ULE presented petitions from Perth, com plaining of the Game Laws of Scotland. Captain BARCLAY thought the Whole of the complaints cortaincd in the petition were to be attributer, to absentee landlords. Mr. FE RGUSSON thought the injury complained of was to he attributed not to the increase of game, but of vermin. Mr. HANDLEY wished to know whether it was the in !ention of the Government to intoduce any measures on the subject ? Mr. F. MAULE said, that it was not the intention of the Government to bring forward any measure on the subject after the discussion of last year. Mr. B ROTHE RTON presented several petitions from the Radicals of Manchester, complaining of Agricultural distress. COURT'S OF-LAW: _ Mr. TOOKE presented petitions from St. Andrew's Holborn, and St. George the Martyr, complaining of the inadequate manner in which the land tax had been levied. He had also a petition, from the Incorporated Society of Attor nics and solicitors throughout the United Kingdom, stating, that having observed the destruction of the Houses of Parlia ment by fire, and the necessity thereby of rebuilding them. they were anxious that the Courts of Law should be removed to a more central situation in the neighbourhood of the Inns of Court, where most of the professional•men live, and where the Courts at Guildhall and the City Courts could be incorporated, thus saving considerable time to the witnesses and suitors, great trouble to the practitioners, and affording more space for the new Houses of Parliament and the Committee rooms ad- joining. Major BEAUCLERK supported the prayer of the peti tion relating to the land -tax, and hoped that the Hon. Member for Truro would move for a select committee on the subject. CASE OF JANE CAMPION. Captain PECH EL presented the petition of which he had given notice, on the subject of this case; and, as the Attorney- General was not in his place, he trusted the Government would order the allowance of this poor woman to be restored. He would not have presented this petition if there had been any remedy at law ; but this woman could not sue ; she would be thrown overboard as a married woman if she attempted to sue. She was a femme covert and not a femme sole, and she was entitled to all the privileges of other married women. She prayed that her petition might be referred to the Ecclesiasti cal Judges, and that, in the meantime, directions might be sent to the magistrates to suspend the proceedings against her. If this were not done, on Monday next this unfortunate woman would be sent to the House of Correction. Mr. F. M AUL E thought it was not a case in which the House could interfere. The Magistrates in this particular case consulted the law officers of the Crown, and had acted on their opinion, and he thought that the Magistrates were justified in acting upon that opinion. He did not know that that House could send directions to the Magistrates to suspend these proceedings. Mr. T. R. KEMP thought that this was a case of great distress, and that the prayer of the petition ought to be granted. The petition was then laid on the table. The same HON. MEMBeR also presented a petition from the fishers of Brighton, praying for a better regulation of the fisheries. Dr. BOWRING presented petitions from Kilmarnack against the Tipling Act ; also from a certain body of Dissent ers, praying to be allowed to celebrate their own marriages. Sir G. CREWE presented a petition from Derbyshire, praying for better protection to the British fisheries. BRIGHTON RAILWAY COMMITTEE. Mr. KEMP begged to call the attention of the House to the adjourned debate to the question of the right of the Members for Greenwich to attend the Brighton Railway Committee. He moved that the Members for Green wich and Kent be allowed to attend the Committee. Lord G. LENNOX would not be doing his duty to the supporters of the Bill if he allowed volunteer members to be put upon the Committee, who were strongly prejudiced against the line which he advocated. If, however, the Speaker was of opinion that the present motion was in order, he (Lord G. Lennox) should, waive his objection.—( Cries of " Chair.") Captain AL SAGER was also opposed to the introduction of the name of the Hon. Member upon the Committee. Mr. BARNARD had never wished that any substantive Allhe m otion should be made to the House f or th e purpose of putt i ng should do his sa d y ti w ty a i s m , p th a a r- t his namep7tounpothnethCeomcmomitinteiett.ee he should Mr. DENISO N thou g ht it would be very un f a i r to the t i i f a h ll e y w and as independently.—( Hear.) promoters, of the Bill if new names were now,to bo a dd e d to the C omm ittee.—(Hear, bear.) They bad been sitting 11 the evidence t hat had been g one throu g h s hould daily for the last three weeks, and was it to be su pp osed that a now be commenced de novo 2 One of the parties was under THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, APRIL 21, 1836. all expense of 5001. a day, and it would be a serious expense to him, as well as an injustice to the other promoters of the Bill, if these new names were now to be added. The SPEAKER had expressed an opinion upon facts that had not turned out to be so. The Members for Kent were not members of the Committee, unless the Hose thought that there was some sufficient reason for their being so. The ques tion for the House was whether it would depart from its usual course. Mr. KEMP said, that after the opinion that had been ex pressed from the Chair he should withdraw his motion. Mr. PE ASE presented a petition from York in favour of the Great Northern Railway Bill. SOUTH DURHAM RAILWAY. Mr. A. TREVOR presented a petition against certain clauses in the South Durham Railway Bill. NEWCASTLE AND NORTH SHIELDS RAILWAY. Sir M. W. RIDLEY presented a petition against the New castle and North Shields Railway Bill. LONDON GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY. Mr. TOOKE presented a petition against the London Grand Junction Railway, also a petition from the inhabitants of the liberties of Stafford Hill to the same effect. DOVER IMPROVEMENT BILL. Mr. PLUMPTRE moved that the second reading of this ill should be postponed to this day week.—Agreed to. SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY. Dr. BOWRING presented a petition from Edenbridge in sour of the South Eastern Railway Bill. DROGHEDA RAILWAY. Sir W. RAE presented a petition from certain persons in Dublin against the contemplated line of railway from Dublin to Drogheda. LONDON GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY. Mr. 0. GORE presented a petition in favour of the Lon• don Grand Junction Railway. LEEDS AND MANCHESTER RAILWAY. hi M s i r t . a ß ilw A a l y N ß E il. S l presented a petition from Leeds in favo ur o LEEDS WATERWORKS' BILL. Sir J. BECKETT presented a petition from Leeds agains this Bill. upon that very principle no one had a right to vote upon any matter in which he had a pecuniary interest. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that so far from being the law of Parliament, it was still a questio vexata. In 1825 a motion was made that no Member should vote on any ques- tion in which he had interest ; but the motion was got rid of by putting the previous question. It was better that the House should pause before it laid down so strict a rule, as it was very difficult to define what was or what was not a direct interest. The question was of so delicate a natu re that, in his opinion, it would be the best to leave it to the honour of Members. Sir R. PEEL did not consider that a direct pecuniary in terest could disentitle a Member from voting. Many matters of a public nature might affect Members of that House in a pecuniary way, and yet they would not do their duty to their constituents if they did not vote upon them.—( Hear, hear.) For instance, the, remission of taxes, in which Members might, and most probably must, have a pecuniary interest.—( Hear.) The principle on which Parliament acted in those cases was laid down in a note to " Hansard," in the case of Mr. Seymour, in 1604. The Right Hon. Baronet here read the note, which was to the effect that the exclusion did not apply to questions of great public inte rest, but to those of lesser importance, and where private in terests might be involved. The writer went on to say that, as regarded private interests, the rule had been long neg lected, and ought to be revived. It would be difficult to pre vent Members voting on occasions when their individual inte rest were concerned, and unless some reliance were placed in their honour, he could not see how the objection could be remedied. Mr. G I SBORNE had some transactions of this nature, and had seen his name, though a director, omitted from the pro ceedings. When he inquired why it was so, the answer was, that they intentionally kept out the names of Members of Par liament--(A laugh)—but at the same time they told him his shares were secured. He might and would have voted on the question if it came before the House, because he did not see why his being a Member of Parliament should prevent his ta king shares in a railroad which came near his property. After a few wcrds from Mr. T. Duncombe, Mr. Brotherton, Mr. Villiers, Sir James Graham, Mr. Grote, and Lord John Russell, Mr. BERNAL said that the present system of conducting the business of the House could not last long. Cou ld it be' admitted in any other tribunal that an interested party should sit and vote both as judge and jury in his own case. And what would be repugnant to the feelings and rules of justice acted on in other tribunals should not be countenanced in the House of Commons. The case was not a private one—all were interested in it.—(Hear, hear.) It was, undoubtedly, difficult to point out a remedy. But the same remedy should be devised for this present sacrifice of all the ends of justice and fair dealing. Mr. El AWE S withdrew his motion. Mr. P. THOMSON thought the House was called on to lay down some general rule, to check the present bad system. Mr. WAKLEY moved, as an amendment, the adjournment of the debate for a week, in order to give the House an oppor tunity of devising some comprehensive plan that would meet all the contingent cases that might arise. The House then divided, when there appeared for the amendment-- Ayes Noes . 50 90 -40 Majority The original motion was then carried. Captain PECHELL begged to ask of the Noble Lerd (J Russell) if it was intended by the Government to interfere it the case of the woman Anne Campion, whose ill-treatment was already published to the country, as he had a motion to make on the subject in case no redress was given. Lord J. RUSSELL was understood to say that the case would be inquired into. THE CARLOW INQUIRT. Mr. HUME begged to ask of the Member for Bradford whether it was his intention to bring forward to-morrow the motion of which he had given notice, in order that gentlemen might be prepared to discuss the case. An. Hort. MEMBER (we believe Sir J. - Brabam) said Mr. Hardy was absent at that time. Mr. HE ATHCO ATE wished to know what new system the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant to substitute for the present one of post-horse duty ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that a law to be in operation for a year only, in order to see what permanent and satisfactory measure could be adopted, would be introduced for the present. (Not more than a few words of the 'question and answer were heard in our Gallery.) AUSTRIA. Mr. HUME begged to ask of the Noble Lord (Palmerston) whether an Ambassador had yet been sent to the Court of Austria, as the lale Ambassador (Sir F. Lamb) had been now i❑ this country for nearly one year and a half; and,. if he was not to return, whether during his absence he was to be allowed his full salary ; for it was monstrous to give Ambassadors 10,0001. a year unless they discharged duties for the salary. In the present posture of affairs we ought not to be without an. Ambassador to Austria, for it was there the threatened dispute with Russia should be settled—(Cheers) —for on the nature of our relations with Austria depended, in a great measure, the success or failure of the encroaching schemes of Russia in Europe.—(Hear, hear.) Lord PALMERSTON replied that the late Ambassador (Sir F. Lamb) would set out on his return to Vienna on Mon day next ; and that since his return, about sixteen months ago, half his usual salary was deducted. Mr. HUME complained of the evils that must arise from witluit awing the principal functionary. Lord PALMERSTON said that the general good would ct secured by the occasional absence of the Ambassador, as it was desirable that he should make personal communications with the Government. Such was the fact in Sir F. Lamb's instance. ISLINGTON MARKET. Mr. POULTER presented a petition from the glaziers of the Vale of Blakemore against this Bill. STOCKPORT GAS-LIGHT BILL. Mr. MARSDEN presented a petition from Stockport against this Bill. GLASGOW COURT-HOUSE AND BRIDEWELL BILL On the motion of Mr. JAMES OSWALD this Bill vas read a third time. On the motion of Sir R. VERNON the Bristol Damages Compensation Bill was read a second time. Mr. H. WILSON presented petitions from six parishes in Cambridgeshire, praying for the better observance of the Sabbath Day.—( Hear, hear.) A number of similar petitions were presented by Lords Sandon and G. Somerset, and other Hon. Members. Lord SANDON presented a petition from the province of New Brunswick, praying for protection to their Timber trade. The Noble Lord also presented a petition from the Town Council of Liverpool, signed by the Mayor, praying for the removal of the disabilities under which the Jews labour. Mr. BUCKINGHAM presented petitions from Great Yarmouth and two other places, praying for the total Re peal of the Stamp Duty on Newspapers. Also another peti tion against the punishment of death, except in cases of pre meditated murder. . LANDLORD AND TENANT.—(IRELAND.) • • .Mr. S. CR AW FOR D presented a petition from the barony of Castlereagh, county of Down, in favour of the Bill for al lowing compensation to the tenant at the expiration of his lease for substantial improvemeits on his farm ; and also for the revision of the Grand Jury laws, so that t'iose who assessed the rates might be chosen by the pQople.—(Hear.) Also petitions from two parishes in he sante county with a similar prayer. Also a petition from the barony of Kilconway, in the King's County, praying for au improvement in the law of landlord and tenant. Mr. HENRY GRATTAN presented a petition from the Clerk of the Peace of the County of Meath, complaining of the increased duties imposed upon him by the Registry Act, and praying compensation. Also a petition from Arklow, praying for increased accommodation for vessels on the Eastern coast. Also, petitions from several parishes in Wicklow, praying for a settlement of the tithe question, and for a measure of relief for the distressed poor. Sir W. FOLLETT presented a petition from the Medical Practitionets of Exeter, praying for compensation for their Atcndance at Coroners' Inquests. FACTORY BILL. Mr. MAXWELL presented a petition from the weavers of Spitalfields, praying the House not to make any alteration in the Factories Bill. Mr. D UNLOP presented six petitions from the hand-loom weavers of different places in .Scotland, prayin g for relief. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from the ope ratives of Preston, in favour of the Ten Hours Factories' Bill. Also a petition from Norwich, praying fur the total abolition 4.f the Stamp Duty upon Newspapers. Mr. FRENCH presented a petition from a place in Ireland, praying for improvements in the River Shannon. Mr. FOSTER presented a petition from the solicitors of against the annual certificate duty. Mr. WAK LE Y presented a petition from an individual in Ireland, praying that all restrictions on the Press of that coun iry •rnight he removed. Sir G. CLERK presented a petition from the Lord Provost and trustees and hcritors of Edinburgh, against the Leith Har i hour Improvement Bill. LONDON GRAND JUNCTION RAILWAY. Mr. 0. GORE, in rising to propose the further considera tion of the Report of the London Grand Junction Railway, :id that he had no personal interest in this railway, nor was he concerned in any speculations of the kind. He rejoiced to .ind that the Right Hon. the President of the Board of Trade, who had at first cntertaind. objections to this Bill, had given up his objections to it, and would not now oppose it. The lion. Gy i ntlerean concluded by moving the further considera tion of ;rte Report. Lord G. SOMERSET could also say that he had no per sonal interest whatever, in the measure before the House. It was not then his intention to discuss the merits or demerits of die 'Bill, but he certainly considered it to be a strong measure to carry a railway of this description through the midst of a dense population. The Noble Lord proceeded to point out several discrepancies between the report of the Committee and the charges in the body of the Bill, and he contended that all ,alculation would be at an end, and that no security could be :liacecl in the reports of Committees, if inaccuracies and dis crepancies of.this kind were permitted. He, therefore, moved that the Bill be re-committed. After a few observations from Mr. Crawford, Sir Samuel Whalley, Mr. Tooke, Mr. French, and Mr. Hume, the House divided, when the numbers were— _ Ayes Noes Majority --63 On our return to the gallery we found Mr. HAWES alluding to the circumstance of the lion. Member for Marylebone ( Sir S. Whalley) having voted in the division which had taken place. Mr. HUME contended that it was the law of Parliament that no person having a personal interest in any question be fore the House should be entitled to vote. He alluded to a case that had occurred during the time of Mr. Huskinson, and :also to the case of the St. Katharine's Docks. When a ques- Tion relating to the St. Katharine's Docks was before the ..-louse, Mr. P. Grenfell having voted, the circumstance was Drought under the notice of the House, and it having been ascertained that he had a personal interest in the question, it was ordered by the House that his vote be withdrawn. Sir G. CLERK read from the journals of the House a mi nute of the case of Mr. Pascoe Grenfell, in which, on a motion made that the vote of Mr. Grenfell be annulled, he having had ri personal interest in the question, Mr. Grenfell was heard in his place, and the House resolved nem. con. that the vote of Mr. Grenfell could not be allowed. Mr. 0. GORE said that this was the first time that an ob jection of this nature had been started. Many Gentlemen bad voted on questions in which they had a partial interest, and it would be too bad if ,the Hon. Member for Marylebone was to be made a scape-goat on this occasion. Mr. E WART said that if parties who had a personal inte rest in a question were not allowed to vote, those who had an interest on the other side should equally be prevented from voting. Mr. WARBURTON contended that, if he rightly under.. stood the precedent laid down by the case of Mr. P. Gren ftsll, those having a personal interest in questions of this nature should not be allowed to vote. There was this difference in the case of shareholders, for they would have it in thei r power by either pressing or relaxing opposition to raise or depreciate the price of shares in the market. Mr. ROEBUCK contended that the House could not to interfere in a case of this kind. It was not competent for the House to deprive a representative of the public trust of which be was the depository, nor deprive him of that right to vote which he had received from his constituents. Mr. AGLIONBY did not think the question oug h t to be viewed on any narrow grounds. He thought the House should inquire into the precedent afforded by the case of M r . P ascoe Grenfell, and if it was founded on a good principle let them affirm and establish it. He did not offer this suggestion fromm any desire to exclude the vote of the Hon. Member fo r M ary lebone. Did no person vote last night who was inte reste d i n the Pension List ? When the House voted 20,000,000/. com pensation to the West India planters, and when that grant was opposed by him and many other Members, did no persons in the West India interest vote in the ma jo ri ty for appropriating: that quisstio a sum ? Sir S. WHALLEY said . t hat when h e voted on occa siontheot andwas labouringtheHouse.being He had come down with his mind made up not to vote u pon the sin L gi o e rd vo S te T w A a N s L of E n Y o esaoindsetqhnatentehee. The majo transactionrity as w palpable avowedlyt o allow a any subscribernotion and o director, f i efforts to conceal it. But, indeed, no charge of improper con duct had been made. The object of the motion, therefore, was not personal—it was merely to show that the law of Parliament excluded all persons from voting upon any ques tion in which they had a direct pecuniary interest. This was the question to show what the law of Parliament was, not what it should be. There was a precedent in 1800 with se gard to the Albion flour mills, in which the principle was so ruled. On that occasion the vote of William Devaignes was disallowed, though he was only a subscriber, and stated that he was so merely on the ground that he considered the under taking would be of public benefit. Several other votes were disallowed at the same time. The case of the Ayr and Cale donian Company in 1828 was also in point. No person on the Civil List or Pension List could vote in that House, and THE TURKEY TRADE Mr. G ROT E presented a petition, signed by sixty of the most respectable merchants engaged in the trade with Tur key, the majority of whom he could vouch, front his own per sonal knowledge, complaining of the interference of Russia in that trade to the prejudice of the English merchants. Turkey had always shown herself disposed to afford every facility to the commercial intercourse between her subjects and those of Great Britain, but lately every merchant trading to the ports of Turkey or of Persia had found himself cramped by the in fluence of Russia. The commerce with those countries had been yearly increasing, and was capable of almost indefinite extension. He hoped, therefore, that any attempts made to thwart that fair extension would be at once met and with stood. At the same time, he must say, that he should deeply deplore any circumstance which should happen to involve this country in hostilities with Russia. Sir S. CANNING presented a petition to the same effect, signed by 160 of the most respectable merchants of Glasgow, trading to the Levant. The present disposition of the Turkish Government was, he believed, as stated by the Hon. Member for London, with whose sentiments, deprecating any thing that could provoke unnecessary hostility on the pa r t of Russia, he agreed. CRACOW. Mr. P. STE WART said that nothing but the great im portance which he attached to the subject could have induced him again to trouble the House with a matter which be had already brought under its notice. The Hon. Member then proceeded to advert to the manner in which he maintained Russia had broken through all the several treaties by which she was bound to the other nations of Europe, and the man ner in which she had opposed herself to the existence of some nations and the interests of all. He then alluded to the treaty of Vienna in 1815. Lord Castlereagh, at the discus sions prior to that treaty, took a sound view of what it was for the interests not only of England but of Europe to insist upon —that Statesman said, " That it was England's wish to see some independent Power established in Poland, under a distinct dynasty of its own, and as a separation between the three great Empires of Etirope. " Experience has shown that the happiness of Poland and the tranquillity of Europe cannot be secured by thwarting the national customs and habits. " An attempt of this kind would only excite among the Pales a spirit of disaffection and degradation ; it would occa sion revolts, and awaken the remembrance of great misfor tunes. He earnestly requested the Sovereigns upon whom die fate of Poland depended, not to leave Vienna till they had pledged themselves that the Poles, in their respective domi nions, under whatever form of Government they might think proper to place them, should still be treated as Poles." The Hon. Member then read the notes of the Ministers for the other Powers in reply : " Count Rasoumoffski, for Russia, replied—' That the just and liberal principles which Lord Castlereagh's note con tained were received by his Imperial Majesty with the most cordial approbation, and that he had been delegated to recog nise the generous sentiments which characterise the British nation, and the enlarged and enlightened views of its Go vernment.' " " Prince Hardenburgb, for Prussia, declared—' That the principles laid down by Lord Castlereagh, as to the method of governing the Polish provinces, were in perfect conformity with the sentiments of his Prussian Majesty on the subject.' " " Prince Metternich, for Austria, said—' That the re-esta blishment of Poland as an independent State, with a national Administration of its own, would have fully accomplished the wishes of his Imperial Majesty ; and that he even would have been willing to make the greatest sacrifice to promote the restoration of that ancient and beneficial arrangement. • 4 , * He entirely agreed with the sentiments ex pressed by Lord Castlereagh in his memorial of the wishes of his Court, as to the future lot of the Poles. " Prince Talleyrand had also said that of all the propositions which had been discussed at this Congress this was the most important to the permanent peace and interests of Europe. And the Emperor Alexander, addressing Count Otronski, Pre sident of the Senate, on April 30, 1815, said— " It is with peculiar satisfaction that I announce to you that the destiny of your country is about to be fixed by the concurrence of all the Powers assembled at the Congress of Vienna. The kingdom of Poland shall be united to the empire of Russia by the title of its own Constitution, on which I am de sirous of founding the happiness of the country. If the great interests involved in general tranquillity have not permitted all the Poles to be united under one sceptre, I have at least en deavoured, to the utmost of my power, to soften the hardships of the separation, and every where to obtain for them, as far as practicable, the enjoyment of their nationality." What then could be said against that revolution in Poland, which some parties had attempted to deny ? The revolution of 1830 was, in his opinion, a most justifiable and rational revolution, and the demand made on the Republic of Cracow to deliver up the parties concerned in that revolution, full five years ago, was quite of a piece with the policy pursued by Russia all along=a policy as cruel and as crooked, as it was in violation of all existing treaties. He begged, for a moment, to call the attention of the House to' the opinions of Mr. Baring, now Lord Ashburton, in relation to the Polish revo- lution s : Mr. Baring said— " It must be admitted that a more righteous rebellion never manifested itself in any country, or that this unhappy people were, if any ever were, justified in opposing the Government which was established over them. For, what was that Govern ment? The Empire had rejected Constantine, the legitimate heir to the throne of Russia, from his unfitness to reign over any body of men ; and yet this miserable and incapable being was sent to reign over the unfortunate Poles. I most firmly believe, that if ever there was in the whole history of mankind a justification for raising the standard of rebellion, it was in this case." The Emperor Nicholas, too, had given the most solemn con firmation of the promises made by the Emperor Alexander, and had sworn to preserve the constitution of Poland as settled by the treaty of Vienna. The Hon. Gentleman then adverted to the manner in which Poland had been treated by the Em peror Nicholas, and to the celebrated speech at Warsaw. Was it possible that such a triumphing in wrong could be endura ble ? The question of Poland was a question of the mainte nance of treaties. The Treaty of Vienna secured, or rather was intended to secure, the constitutional existence of the Duchy of Warsaw as the new kingdom of Poland, with its 4,000,000 of inhabitants, the nationality of the old kingdom of Poland of 1772, with its 20,000,000 of inhabitants, and the independent existence of Cracow, with its University, its laws, &c. This was the contract which was then entered into, and which was guaranteed by all the Powers of Europe. There was, perhaps, scarcely in the history of the world a precedent for conduct such as that of Russia ; and it would seem that, not content with political aggrandisement, she was now attacking our commercial power and interest in Turkey. Would the English Government stand by and per mit this system to be pursued without interference ? In June, 1832, when the attention of his Noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was called to this same subject, he remembered that he said— " As to the idea which seems to be entertained by several gentlemen of its being intended to exterminate a large king dom, either morally or politically, if it be seriously entertained any where, it is so perfectly impracticable, that I think there need be no apprehension of its being attempted." And, again, in July, 1833, in answer to a motion of the Hon. and Learned Member for Tipperary, the Noble Lord said— " The Hon. Member complains that Russia is about to play the same, game at Constantinople as she did in Poland ; but I am convinced that the Russian troops will shortl3 evacuate Turkey, if they have not already done so ; and that she will fulfil the pledge she has given on this subject, not only to Eng land, but to the whole of Europe. Ido not think that it enters into the policy of Russia to make an attempt at a partition of Turkey ; but if she should make the attempt, it is impossible she could be successful." Now, here, he should like to ask the Noble Lord had his pro phecies been fulfilled ? Were not the Russian troops still in possession of Turkey ? was not the influence of Russia pre dominant there? and was not that influence directed, contrary to the practice and wish of the Turkish Government, to restrict the progress of British commerce and the advancement of Bri tish interests? Those acquainted with the nature of the trade with Turkey were perfectly aware that the trade was a most valuable one to this country, and one that was capable of almost an indefinite extension. In 1827 he found there were exported to Turkey 11,560,172 yards of cotton cloth, and 647,0941b5. of cotton twist. In 1828, which was a year of war with Turkey, the exports were only 4,719,000 yards of cotton cloth, and 156,8601b5. of cotton twist. In 1829, after the establishment of peace, the exports rose to 15,566,351 yards, and 662,5321bm. ; and in 1834, to 28,621,498 yards, and 1,989,8511b5., and this in spite of all the machinations of Russia which had been described in the petitions that had been presented to the House. In point of value, the exports to Turkey, in 1827, amounted to 531,704/. ; in 1828, the year of war,t0185,842/.; in 1829 to 568,684/.; andin 1834 t 01,207,941/. The comparative value of the shipments of British manu factures to Russia and Turkey was as follows : but before he stated them he should beg to observe that two indivi duals in the mercantile community, having nearly two thirds of the export trade to Russia in their hands, one of whom was h constituent of the Right Hon. the President of the Board of Trade, bad been gradually withdrawing from the trade to Russia, and was about to relinquish it alto gether, in consequence of the preparations for war everywhere visible in that country. The comparative value of the expor' trade from Great Britain was : In 1827—T0 Russia .£1,408,970 To Turkey 531,704 Of this trade there was cotton twist—. To Russia To Turkey In 1834 the value exported was— To Russia £1,382,309 To Turkey 1,207,941 1,400,000 lbs. 900,000 being within a fraction of equality. In other words, in the intervenient period the export trade to Russia had declined 13 per cent., while that to Turkey had increased 100 per cent. Besides this the trade to Turkey was peculiarly valu able, inasmuch as it was carried on chiefly in British bottoms, while that to Russia was the contrary, and comparatively of little moment. Vessels from this country went out to Russia empty and came back half full, while they went from hence to Turkey freighted with the richest merchandize, and re turned laden with valuable raw produce. He would state the tonnage employed out of this country to Russia:— In 1821 it amounted to 28,000 Tons 1832 28,800 1883 28,730 showing a stationary point in a long period of time ; whereas the trade to Turkey was on the increase, and at present equalled, in the quantity of tonnage employed, the trade to China from this country. The Turkish manufactures had given way before the superiority of English produce. Of 600 muslin looms employed in Scutari in 1812 there were in 1831 only 40 in operation ; and out of 2,000 silk manufactories which then existed at Tournovo there were in 1831 only 200 employed. There was another point on which there was such an increase in the trade of the country that it would be madness to shut our eyes to the danger which menaced it—he meant the transit trade from the Black Sea to Persia. In 1830 the transit trade through Trebizond consisted of about 5,000 bales, valued at 250, 0001 . ; in 1834 it had in creased to 12,000 bales, valued at 600,000/. ; and in 1835 to 19,300 bales, valued at 965,0001., notwithstanding the cholera and plague both raged there, and in the ports of Persia commer cially connected with it, during 1835. Thus, in five years (1830 to 1835) trade increased 140 per cent. ; in the sixth year, as compared with the last year, 300 per cent. ; and, as compared with the preceding year, 60 per cent., consisting of European manufactures, nine-tenths being British. The other point to which he should call the attention of the House was the trade of the Danube. That trade had been rendered free and unrestrained by the sanction of the Treaty of Vienna. The Danube was the inlet to Wallachia and Moldavia, both provinces objects of jealousy to Russia in a political, as well as a commercial point of view. In 1833 the British shipping in the Danube was nothing. In 1834 the trade of this country with that quarter began, and in 1835 there were 3,000 tons employed in rt. In 1836 the amount had doubled; there were 6,000 tons employed in it. There was a place 135 miles beyond Trebizond, called Erzeroum, where a trade with this country was carried on to a great extent. Eng land had no consul there, but Russia had; and the Russian consul bullied the Pacha to such a degree that British interests were tortured, and British traders were so teazed as to be absolutely unable to carry on their business. Such was the state of our trade with Russia. None but a Russian in prin ciple, and a Russian in interest, would deny that it was worthy the utmost attention of this country.—( Hear.) None but a Russian in principle and interest would deny that it was in the greatest jeopardy. Every nation within the *sphere of Russian influence—even Turkey itself—was beckoning England to their release from a policy and a dominion which was death and destruction to everything liberal. With regard to the subject of treaties, he would take his stand on the fatal treaty of Adrianople. That treaty saddled the Turkish Government with a debt of four millions, for which it took as security the fortress of Silistria, and secured to Russian proteges—under the name of merchants—privileges greater than those enjoyed by the natives, namely, exemption from one-half of the duties imposed upon all imported articles, and liberty to live under their own laws alone, with exemption from those of that king dom. It gave up 200 miles of coast on the Black Sea, the pretensions of Turkey itself to which was at best doubtful, and it conceded that fatal point, the Delta of the Danube, with the stipulation that six miles opposite should be uninhabited. England bad the power of preventing this by refusing her sanction to that treaty, but that power she did not choose to exercise. At that time Russia had at Adrianople but 15,000 men. She had landed at a place between the Bos phorus and the Balkan 12,000 men, and she had another small force of 5,000 in another place contiguous, making in all but 32,000 men beyond the Danube. The Turkish Alba nian army, on the contrary, was in full force and unabated vigour, and bad only the day before the treaty was signed cut off a detachment of the Russian army. Gen. Diebitsch had even been reconnoitering to make good his retreat under the guns of the fleet commanded by Sir P. Malcolm at the very time, should the negotiation prove unsuccessful. The terror of the Russians was such, until England had given her assent to the treaty, that she was quite paralysed, and it was quite noto rious that if that assent had been refused, the safety of every Russian soldier beyond the Balkan would have been compro mised, arid the retreat of the army completely cut off. What was, then, the state of Austria ?—( Hear, hear.) It had arms in its hands, and Europe was roused to indignation, and ready to be up in defence of the integrity of Turkey. Yet, notwith standing this, England sanctioned the treaty ; and it was now the cause of all the disasters to our trade in Turkey arid these countries. A ludicrous proof of the importance which the Russians attached to the sanction of England was the fact, that Admiral Heyden jumped half naked from his cot, and, in that condition, embraced the British officer who brought the intelligence of its ratification. The next treaty was that of Unkiar Skelessi, which was so injurious to England, and so insulting to Europe genet:ally, that it was reduced, as the Right Hon. Secretary for Foreign Affairs had said on a for mer occasion, to a dead letter, by means of a diplomatic cor respondence. If the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi was a dead letter, then was the Black Sea open to our ships of war as well as to our merchant ships ? The treaty of St. Petersburgh followed in 1834. The House was not made acquainted with its existence till it was four months old. That treaty was an apparent act of magnanimity on the part of Russia, be cause Europe had been so disgusted with her conduct in the former treaty. It was intended to serve as a hollow peace offering to the offended Powers. By that treaty the provinces of Wallachia and Moldavia were evacuated, and the remainder of the debt remitted ; but Russia still retained the fortress of Silistria, which had been pledged for its payment, and a force of 40,000 men was kept up in Bessarabia. This abdication of the power to nominate the Hospodars was only temporary. In Trebizond wo were not represented by a consul, therefore r ~_c 1 our interests were neglected, and our rights violated. .''.7,,, last Saturday he (Mr. S.) had letters from that place, stating ~.. such that unless some active interference speedily tookplac was the influence of the Russian Consul there, that Persia, goods would be proscribed, in the name of the Shah of t' .. 0 7.. He would next cross to the Danube. He would tell the ff?tis e, in plain language, that Russia had ventured to lay on British ships entering there, and presumed to exercise right of seach, and to visee the passports of British subjects. The eject of Russia was to stop the Danube trade to (i ~..r t Britain—to. shut up from her all access to central Euro v. , , 1 P t e hey that great inlet. To effect this the more comp °f ~_a,. were dredging the northern branch of the embouchure t tha t were _ er ' river, so that in a short time it would —like the southet atil branch, be deep enough for ships of war, which it was n s . present. At Sebastopol, Russia had ten line of battle hip__ fit for sea at a few hours' notice, eight fricsates, tw enty T r i a tr . ibute a vettes and brigs, eight large steam-vessels British built, _T: 5,000 men in Goritza. At Kiow, she had an army of 50, a o_T; men in encampment, ready to take the field: in forceßessarbi. she had 40,000 men, until 25,000 were drafted from that . 0 , and sent elsewhere ; and in Silistria there was a Silistriagarrift 7,000 men. The last act of Russia was to evacuate i n the but for the purpose of fortifying the Dardanelles. Why , re d time of peace, was all this preparation ? Russia had ventured to a to arrest British ships in time of , peace ; she tribute on them. The ships whicn were bound thither - 11 . , ti e received directions not to submit to search, or to py unl e ss tribute imposed on them. Their fate was inevitable _h.. the House came to some expression of opinion on the, sub the ject ; and they would infallibly be marched off to Oc!" if there to stay in durance until they should T reP „, e i rl Ur' some prompt interference was not intended. L e nd an swer am had remonstrated on these proceedings, but tll than had impos n a . he received was, if possible, a greater insult ate, the provocation itself.—( Hear, bear.) He renaonstr I: with N e sselrode, but Nesselrode referred him to the theGove r of South Russia, and from thence he was referred to It: Consul of Goritza, and from thence to the British Cons I L. but the result was, that no redress was afforded, and vesselsat sever returned, except that those British masters of k , who had been aggrieved might come to Odessa, arid mi n d out their own case. Such was the position which Fa g with had placed herself in. He had refrained from interfering ty'...d the question of the conduct of Russia elsewhere, i n S Y ria brav ado Asia Minor, and especially in Sweden, where in they fortified a place which did not require it, a ~_ the execution of it those unfortunate Poles who had been I)i ' nished from Warsaw. He had been accused of a desire f or _, war. If a wish to protect the honour and the interestcos o: England, at whatever price it might cost, could be so r!,, strued, he would not deny or extenuate the charge, other; he had no wish on the subject. It was impossible to rerae ver Ver the words of Mr. Canning in that House, that " wh er a e or n the British flag was unfurled there was protection from foreign •r o f aggression," without painfully feeling the present posittri., this country. The Hon. Member concluded by moving " That an humble address be presented to his Majesty, Pr a a l eo t, that he will be graciously pleased to order a diplomatic_st_„.. apdressed Tte to be sent forthwith to the free and independent State of i " ta cow; and that his Majesty will also be graciously pleasen ed to take such steps as to his Majesty may seem best adaPt.tain, protect and extend the commercial interests of Great D r ' in Turkey and the Euxine." don of h S i i s r HEo.n.CFOriDenßd,lNwoGuTidOcaNli, thein r a i t s t i e n n g tie t e o esfatchoieldntehase:° lie to; i. t p i o m si e tio p n ew w e h r i , ch ae ß d u t s h s e ia y w w a e s el a d t t a h ee is tmheomeeenete:asistyuming as a w' the o f meeting,' 8t facts of the case by more active proceedings_ than aPPe a n re us sia present to be in the contemplation of the Executive. r t he had twenty-five sail of the line in the Baltic a nd tee 111 , in Black Sea, and appeared to be ready for demonstrationtime either the north or south of Europe. The British ma: h i e . force, on the contrary, were neither concentrated or avaledi, All the ships in commission were liable to be sent to the or , terranean or elsewhere; and without some degree e f as to thought was exercised, the consequences might be se,„ to the peace of Europe. He was convinced that if we we" bad forth our maritime force as we had done on form she-lot sions, Russia would not have dared to have acted as o , not done. He believed the Emperor of Russia had rag"' bira been guilty of such evil designs as had becu ascribed t° bes t in l his proceedings against Turkey, and be was sorry. to ne , him spoken so badly of as he had been in that affair. t r tati fore the battle of Navarino, Nicholas had asked the SI : sc to agree to the treaty of London. This. however,_ v` nt ' t if fused by Turkey, and then Nicholas had declared tha 'if they persisted in their refusal, war should be declard,:breo lie had been supported as he ought in this demand by the "" At Powers concerned, Turkey would have acceded to it., re , that period Russia had agreed that the allied fleets shoal ° , 5; tire, and that none should profit by their previous alle c f — ,:tY , and had Turkey had the wisdom to accede to the l' r- w er• Russia would have had no pretence to get her into her P:ji it) At that period some unfortunate change (he must c hich took place in this country, which introduced measures I t to led to a breach in the alliance, and to the offer of an insu IV Russia, who thereupon declared war against Turke' a nd held in his hand the Greek papers proving these fac ts ' so cot would read them to the House if they wished. With re `sad to the aggressions now feared on the part of Russia, w r e ta ing the means in our power to stop them completely, bY ° at tlia and fitting out a fleet, and holding it in readiness to att ccorY moment we might need it. At present we were in d Oua; danger of seeing our commerce with the East destroYe.'e 01 natio god allies lost, and our honour as a powerful and leading Europe compromised and degraded: It was an old and a b s oia maxim of British policy that where our trade was there 5 1. o ily be our ships. The trade we carried on in the Baltic Vra s h " a LltlY worth our protection, while that in the Black Sea wa s v . :rsi''' increasing with Turkey and the provinces bordering 0 1 %001 The House should recollect that in all our dealings wi th ' t oal s ' and Persia, everything was carried thither in British lif-trtines Our ships went loaded with our most profitable raaria` a ;f the instead of money, in exchange for the richeat fabric' fO r East. There were no difficulties thrown in the ivfie o f in commace with the East by Turkey—no Custom edu ctio n terposed its duties and regulations to retard the in tr %taill a of British goods—no Prussian league existed to Inttionfac systematic monopoly and an exclusion of foreign I ll a o l eo tures—no Autocrat like the Emperor of Russia to se if n ey was back again, or confiscate them at his pleasure. In,r:creouslY, of all countries, that with which we could most adra i ltiical t) carry on a commercial intercourse. The great l _ o otrY which existed in the way of our intercourse with thaticie o s, arose from the conduct of the Viceroy of EgyPt• f a l f eet however, entirely at our mercy. With our pow er se hor contiguous to his arsenal, if we said that be must The eea 'Oc t !: tilities with the Porte that moment he must stop. o n tu roy had of old felt the strength of our representations sir F. subject of the evacuation of the Morea, where be, t c,a vsit i n j Codrington) had the honour of becoming 201 13°111 71es i ' Lim. The Viceroy at that period had received °r ole r islt resist all applications to induce him to evacuate it at ( sir of his head, and he did resist it accordingly ; but he Vern Codrington) was as pressing on the other side, so th.c.: nieces; was sadly puzzled; but at last prudently yielded tu that tb sky and evacuated the Morea. He bad no do ubt s o r same means employed with this Potentate would ag sto sbicc duce similar effects ; and if we prevented him front di be s al, d P!'y rf against Russia. But it might be asked, how con l e t Turkey, he was confident she would be able to defend A i wa interfere effectually without entering into hostility ? it so igb a easily. Russia had a fleet in the Black Sea, and p glsa r easily be arranged that, at the instance of Turkel' a li °pe e : also should send a fleet there, and thus put an end to wit h _, tunity of Russia carrying on a war in that quarter:.o ~s es tiqo spect to operations in the Baltic, he looked on the' f i st ,'" to t l %. which Russia was erecting in the island of Aland , c L° sti es' coast of Sweden—he looked on them as evidences of a : t be es; intention on the part of Russia to aggrandise herse i l a f, a dy l e pense of her neighbours in the north as she htid ,ll es ide t_ a in the south. She had a numerous flotilla anchorea 1 „' so& island, and every thing prepared to enable her to ari' into submission whenever she might think proper. a ble or iii Lord PALMERSTON in rising to answer the say a tbe of the Hon. Member, wished to be permitted to av O re words on a. misapprehension which had found its vr OP f s m i o i n n d t of f a h t is Hon. i e F e r t i e w n d a a , dwi h v o ide se d e i m n e o d p t in o io cntrt b i _ an o hjee. on t e. e ther on E a , an t ßussi policy. He could assure him that 0 l ip the b y) question nor on any other was there any division,,a Lor ds w e binet. We all maintain the same views (said his a wed• p i ed to maintain peace as iong as peace can be Mai n t l o 5 10°,011 are deeply sensible of the importance oft e cl,neitrilanlea,t ablo in the motion now before the House. ; but it he fulli us tri place its confidence in us we fancy that we may the co _ de s to protect the interests and uphold the honour I.'..o4hsdi;;;Pst without going to war to effect it. His Hon. Fri,c h i s mo tor s of his review of Russian policy and the subjects 0.0; aver y remote period, and pursued them throup i r e ° - Con t .i. g re :, ° . Poland, Turkey, and the East, beginning witia, o f Cr!;j o ses of Vienna, and bringing it down to the occupatn", t his r! goe ct He did not feel it necessary to follow him throit' ic ith r . u o ,r s , II or to go into the views of the British Governiof n it did ' pe es' to Poland. It might be sufficient to state that was 1 0 wh iCh lively interest in the affairs of that country. I t_ use for _ t hat sary for him to enter into the justice of the cause tjltasy de t hat Poland contended, or into the way in which r ya had et a Ldt oP Sovereign substituted for it had worked. .fiea th e o nt o abll° he did not think the revolt of the Poles juß ussia tba .t alv nig to' . to tb e n olic of that Constitution, and it was stated to ....._ File n tat e the opinion of his Cabinet.—( Hear.) 1 o p f os c ed ra to cow sen um-0 . 5 00 a o o li w gh t 2; of Russia in that quarter. When 1, 1 „,„a thitherth,.°o to d watch a C tc o Friend that he agreed with him so j ar ' a gent % 01 0 0 would be very desirable to send a consular art o f hi 00 o a trusted he would consent to withdraw that q uesti °l2 d e ou t g o without taking the sense of the House. di bed 1115 , .°I go h ns e u v l e a r r athgeenpteafcroemef this countarYo iniapi: ele cuti v iiis flon e • not oF l 9 the present occasion whether his UOll. Frie; . _ fo ctio s fr ica_ . , necessity for interference with the (Lord Palmerston) thought that be had rict:_jeg otic_ eu atr,! e o had stated the great importcnce of maintaialio , t b e t , f to cial and political relations with TurkeY,,,,o4, bot h :to d e ; lying beyond, and preserving the indepeil" for the Housed Fe e, nation and of Persia. The real question_, Tootelicaotagra tide on was, not whether the independence T ere ial a,. ° Di . tb!„, sia should be maintained, with all the cora b il t vi lie,tf:d in .'„*.? that would naturally ensue to En g land° eat was bil ig lis" di' were any dangers to which this Govern:the POW er° oo .- Ills ference to their situation with respect t . „ _ 1 evo 0 0 . 0 01. was He felt it was necessary to keep a assistantwatcntu':if 0,7 0 401 T is , tion of Turkey, and to render her ae with ahe ( to Hon. Friend had shown that the a s verY ne t p er w a thi s count Palmerston) believed that it a it by E di p„ .l , y ear ..a blo yearly increasing, and was of great tpronlise;linserY f°ee°' country to watch over it, and P His Hon. Friend had shown that wi thin 0 Ono of , .riog rho a" SP' e trade had risen from next to nothing ti,nrkey,.t. it s _ able extent. Now, he would ask, was _ Aence , wl n s, s oci nu ite the la st wconsid°7oso years, in a state of complete indePe"`; ra rcsouru'ie? ;t. exercising full authority to develope I v khe pF op lie o c Vr , ro pertY 1 ' as 10 ' rote?t to protect its rights and toe p. T ar seas the reverse. Part of that period ... __.-----`